evidently meant to assert that this was the case in the fourth century.' But, Sir, he says what Tertullian had said nearly two hundred years before, and what Ignatius had said nearly three hundred years before. So that if Jerome spoke the 'fashionable language of his day,' so did Tertullian of his, and Ignatius of his: and thus it was the fashion from the age of the Apostles. And as Ignatius had lived almost his whole life in that age, and was contemporary with the greater part of them, we may very reasonably suppose that it was the fashionable language then also.

Further. Your answer, instead of overthrowing what we suppose is implied in the quotation from Jerome, completely establishes it. You say, Jerome speaks of his own age, and that prelacy was established at that time. This implies, that in the fourth century, Presbyters and Deacons had no right to baptize but by authority from the Bishop. The same may be said when Ignatius wrote; and consequently, prelacy was established at that time. Then the fair inference is, that it was established by apostolic authority; for nothing less could have effected it at that early period.

To the words from Jerome, "that Bishops come in the place of the Apostles, and hold the first place among the officers of the Church," you say, 'he speaks a language in which every Presbyterian is ready to join him.' No doubt, allowing you to distort the words of Jerome. But remember that Jerome speaks of the Bishops of his own time, whom you acknowledge to have been a superior order; and then, if they came in the place of the Apostles, and held the first rank, undoubtedly the Apostles held the first rank, and surely the second and third were Priests and Deacons; and thus the argument is conclusive.

But if you had not ceded that Jerome's Bishop was a prelate, then I must have first proved that he was; for when the premise is denied, the conclusion is not admissible till the premise be established. But this trouble you have kindly saved me.

To the assertion of Jerome, that Polycarp was Bishop of all Asia, you object, that the words are taken from a work that is 'interpolated and suspicious.' But I have quoted what the learned Hammond, and Pearson, and others, have quoted before me; and what Cave marks as genuine. Jerome's calling Polycarp an ecclesiastical prince or chief is nothing to the purpose; for he applies the same term to an Apostle and to a Bishop. (Tit. i. Psalm xlv.) That Polycarp was the chief Bishop of Asia Minor, there is no proof, that I know of; but that he was Bishop of Smyrna, you yourself will acknowledge. If then, Jerome did not mean such a Bishop as existed in his day, he spoke a language that could not possibly be understood; for I take it to be universally admitted, that when a man uses terms, he uses them in the sense in which they are used at the time he writes or speaks.

These are the only objections which you make to my quota

tions from Jerome. And now I leave it to every impartial mind, whether you do not use miserable shifts to get rid of some of the clearest testimonies of episcopacy that are to be met with in all antiquity.

But these are not the only testimonies which Jerome affords. There are others, which I will now produce.

Jerome says, "Be subject to thy Priest (or Bishop,) and receive him as the parent of thy soul." Why so? He tells us, because 66 we know that what Aaron and his sons were, that the Bishops and Presbyters are." Ep. ad Nep. 2.

In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ii. 6. he says, "James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem." Does he

mean the first congregational, or the first diocesan Bishop? On the 45th Psalm, he says, "CHRIST hath constituted Bishops to be the chiefs or princes of the Church in all parts of the world." This is the testimony also of the pious Ignatius.

In his first epistlé to Heliodorus, De Episcopatu non suscipiendo-"it is not easy to stand in the place of Paul, and to hold the degree of Peter." It has been proved from Scripture, and it certainly was the sense of all antiquity, that the Apostles held the first rank, and consequently, those who hold their degree must also be of that rank.

It is needless to add any thing more. Testimonies in abundance have been produced; and those so pointed that it is impossible for any ingenuity to get rid of them.

From all these testimonies, it necessarily follows, that you have either mistaken the meaning of Jerome, or that he contradicts himself. If the former, you derive no aid from him; he is altogether on our side. If the latter, he is not worth a straw to either party.

I have now, in addition to the testimonies from the fathers in my first work, given such proofs of diocesan episcopacy, up to the apostolic age, as would, it appears to me, if impartially regarded, convince any man. But however this may be, it is certain, if ideas can be conveyed by words, that you are far from being correct in the following passage-' Dr. B. indeed says, and endeavours to persuade his readers, that the writers whom he quotes, declare the Bishops which existed in the days of the Apostles to have been just such Bishops as existed several centuries afterwards, in their own times-Bishops in the prelatical sense of the word. But the Doctor, with all his confidence, must pardon me for saying this is not true. He has produced no passage which makes any such declaration, or which legitimately implies it; nor is he able to produce such a passage from all the stores of antiquity, within the specified limits'm-that is, within the fourth century.

I really, Sir, should not be more astonished had you told me, that I have the wings of a bird, or the scales of a fish. I have

m Continuation, p. 195, [p. 340, 2d ed.]

VOL. II.-5

produced at least twenty quotations, that go either expressly or by necessary consequence to the point you controvert. Several of these I have just quoted from Jerome, which necessarily imply as much. Does not Jerome expressly say, that the Christian Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, had a right to claim the same degrees that existed in the Jewish Church? And was not the high Priest superior to the Priests by divine appointment? Is not then the Bishop (the Bishop of his day, remember) superior to the Presbyter, by divine appointment? Is there any possibility of avoiding this consequence? I declare, that I am totally ignorant of the meaning of words, if this be not a legitimate inference. But you are never at a loss for some kind of answer. Jerome, it seems, spoke the fashionable language of his day; that is, told a lie to be in the fashion. Very well; let it be a lie, or truth, just as you please. Then, by your own acknowledgment, he asserts the divine institution of episcopacy-the episcopacy of his day, when every one admits the Bishop to be of a superior order to the Presbyter. If it was 'natural for Jerome to talk thus,' as you say it was, then this single quotation completely destroys your assertion, that I am not able to produce such a passage from all the stores of antiquity;' and it also completely exhibits you in the unpleasant predicament of self-contradiction.

It would certainly be a waste of time to re-produce all the passages which I have quoted to prove that the writers of the second, third, and fourth centuries, did assert the apostolical origin of prelacy. Some of the passages are direct and positive; others necessarily imply it.

You go on in your usual strain-' Besides the direct quotations from the fathers, which prove that the primitive Bishop was the pastor of a single congregation,' (for instance, Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, who had forty-six Presbyters under him,) ‘Í mentioned, in my former letters, some facts incidentally stated by early writers, which serve remarkably to confirm the same truth. Dr. B. treats these alleged facts with great contempt, and endeavours to show that they are all either unfounded, or nothing to the purpose. I do not think it necessary to go over this part of the ground again. Of the five facts mentioned by me and assailed by Dr. B. there are only two of which it appears proper to take any further notice.'n

I am not at all surprised at your dropping three of those facts; they were too ridiculous to be named by a grave, sensible man. And had you not re-produced the other two, it would not have injured your character in the point of prudence; as I think it may be made to appear very fully.

You say, 'Dr. B. does not deny that in the council of Antioch, in the third century, there were upwards of six hundred Bishops."

n Continuation, page 196, [p. 340, 2d ed.] Continuation, p. 196, [p. 341, 2d ed.]

That I did not deny your statement, is certainly true; but why I did not, I really cannot say. Probably it was owing to inattention. But I deny it now. You name Eusebius as your authority for saying, that there were six hundred Bishops in the council of Antioch. Be so good as to turn to Eusebius, and you will find that he says no such thing. The historian's words are,' μυρίοις τε ἀλλοις. This numeral signifies an indefinitely great number-infinitus, extremus, maximus; but never six hundred. The Greek word for this precise number is eaкoσiol, as you must certainly very well know.P

The foundation then upon which you build your assertion, that there were six hundred Bishops in the council of Antioch, being a gross mistake, and as you produce no other authority but this mistranslated numeral, I need not give myself any more trouble about it.

But, Sir, were I to admit the number of Bishops you mention, it would be of no service to you. The learned Cave assures us, that the council in question was composed of Bishops from "all the Oriental provinces ;" and as they comprehended many hundred leagues, there was room enough for double the number of Bishops, and for each having a sufficiently large diocese.

You say further, that I do not deny that there were present at a provincial synod in Africa, in the time of Augustine, between five and six hundred Bishops.'

This is really a curiosity in the regions of controversy. Augustine was made a Presbyter in 391, and not long after was raised to the see of Hippo; and, in the year 410, he had a conference with the Donatists." Now, Sir, at this time, you yourself acknowledge that diocesan episcopacy was universally the government of the Church, and yet you quote the number of Bishops in this council to prove that it was congregational! In the name of consistency where shall I find you? If your proof be good, then you must take back your acknowledgment; but if your acknowledgment be according to truth, then your proof is good for nothing. Now take your choice.

Another curious circumstance in this account is, that you give us no authority whatever for it, either in your first or second volume. This omission alone is a sufficient reason for rejecting your assertion as to the number. But I will not be so strict; I will, for the sake of showing our readers that you can make nothing of it, admit the fact. Now, Sir, one single observation settles the point-it is this. Every smatterer in ecclesiastical history knows that, wherever the Catholics had a Bishop, there the Donatists had one also. And not only the Donatists, but

p I suspect that the Doctor has been led into this gross mistranslation by casting his eye on the Latin translation of Eusebius by VALESIUS. He renders volol by sexcenti, not meaning by it 'six hundred,' but an indefinite number. Thus CICERO ad Attic. VII. 2. Venio ad epistolas tuas, quas ego sexcentas uno tempore accepí. Ad Attic. VI. 4. Belli periculum, militum improbitas, sexcenta præterea alia. q Historia Literaria, Secul. Novatian. p. 100. r CAVE'S Hist. Lit. p. 186.

the Arians too pursued the same policy. Indeed, almost all the sectaries took care to have their Bishops; for they very well knew that it would be a millstone about the neck of their schism to be without that officer. Thus, then, we see the cause of the multiplication of Bishops in Africa in the fourth and fifth centuries. Now, allowing the Donatists not to be idiots, they would take very good care to have as many Bishops at the conference as the Catholics; and then the latter would be reduced to between two and three hundred.

That this is a true account of the matter you will find by consulting Dr. Maurice's Answer to Baxter. The Doctor gives some of the speeches of that conference, and shows, very clearly, that both parties multiplied Bishops for the purpose of weighing each other down by numbers. But before the schism of the Donatists and the Arians, the number of dioceses does not appear to be greater than in other parts of the world.

Dr. Maurice also shows that the schism of Meletius multiplied Bishops in Egypt; the author of the sect ordaining Bishops in every region through which he passed; as the Arian controversy had before in every country where it prevailed. Yet, I believe, it never entered into the head of any man before Baxter, that this is a proof of congregational episcopacy. At the very time many dioceses were of large extent, as appears from the Collation of Carthage, the Abstract of St. Austin, and the Notitia of the African Church, made about fifty years after Austin's death, and published by Sirmondus.

Your next instance of the number of Bishops banished in the Vandalic persecution admits of pretty nearly the same answer. Your authority is Victor Uticensis. He was a Bishop, and was among the number of those who were banished by Genseric and Hunneric in the year 484 or 485; and in the year 487 he wrote his history of the persecution. This work I have never seen.

Now, Sir, is it not very inconsistent and disingenuous in you to persist in making such quotations, when you acknowledge that diocesan episcopacy, long before that time, was the government of the Church? It really astonishes me, that a man of your sense should expose yourself in such a glaring manner. What purpose is it to answer? Do you expect to persuade any Presbyterian who has the least reading, that in the latter end of the fifth century, congregational episcopacy prevailed in Africa? If there are any such among your denomination, they must unquestionably be very ignorant of this subject.

When you, Sir, will tell us what extent of country lay under the persecution-whether the whole of Africa, or but a small part of it-perhaps I may say something more; although it will be totally unnecessary, as you have freely yielded the point that episcopacy was then diocesan.

a Vindication of the Primitive Church, p. 544, and 518, &c.

t CAVE'S Hist. Lit. p, 296.